Andy Zaltzman's satirical, whimsical look at cricket

Digging negatives out of positives

England deliberately collapsed to the precipice of defeat, in order to be able to hang on for a draw, frustrate the South Africans, and march to Durban with momentum firmly stuffed into their cricket bags

Happy New Year, Confectionery Stallers, and welcome to a new year, a new decade (or the last year of an old decade, depending on your decade-defining proclivities). I am firmly in the New Decade camp, and so, I assume, is Jacques Kallis, if only so he can claim to be the 29th member of the highly exclusive club of players who have scored Test hundreds in three different decades.

(I have a full list of these 29 cricketing legends, but will not list them here for fear of antagonising my wife, who is anxious for me not to join the equally exclusive club of husbands who have spent excessive parts of two decades working out things on Statsguru. But a special mention for the great Indian batsman Vijay Merchant, who is the only man in the history of humanity to have scored just one Test century in three separate decades. Throw that little fact into your next conversation at work and see how people react. Hang on, I’m not quite finished with this one yet. If Kallis can somehow muster another five-wicket innings from his creaking limbs, he will become only the eighth bowler to take a five-for in three different decades, and join Kapil Dev as the only player to have both scored hundreds and taken five-fors in three decades. I’m done now.)

So impressive has Kallis been in this series that he must be starting to fancy his chances of becoming the first man to score hundreds in three different centuries – with modern science and training techniques, and Kallis’ unshakeable focus, it is entirely possible that he could still be churning the runs out in 2100.

The new year began well enough for both teams in Cape Town. England were strong throughout the first day, if a little lacking in old-ball penetration, and South Africa recovered with some style from a position where the series appeared to be heading decisively northwards.

After Durban, England fans had woken in the glorious dawn of a new year, rubbed their bleary faces, checked the second-Test scorecard they had printed out and hidden under their pillows, and murmured, “Did that really happen?” It was a performance almost devoid of flaws, and brought about England’s first innings victory over South Africa since 1964 (which itself had been so impressive that the prominent British poet Edith Sitwell felt compelled to die the following day at the age of 77).

One of the unavoidable medical side effects of modern sport-watching is feeling a faint but perceptible sensation of nausea and futility when hearing losing teams, captains and coaches desperately extracting spurious "positives" after being utterly defeated. A team will be walloped like a Victorian schoolboy, then hack away in the mineshaft of humiliation with the pickaxe of desperation in search of some flimsy nuggets of optimism to pass off as the pure gold of progress.

Therefore, in the wake of England’s spectacular Durban victory, I resolved to reverse this modern procedure, and attempt to find some equally spurious "negatives" to take from a magnificent all-round performance, as decisive and complete as any that England have concocted in recent years.

1. Kevin Pietersen’s enduring weakness against left-arm spin. It is almost reaching the stage where, as soon as the big man strides to the wicket, Graeme Smith will not merely bring Paul Harris straight on to bowl, but also tell Dale Steyn to try a few left-arm tweakers when Pietersen is on strike.

2. England’s two under-pressure batsmen, Alastair Cook and Ian Bell, were out in familiar fashion. Old repeated weaknesses resurfaced − Cook nibbled outside his off stump, Bell wafted airily. When will they rectify these flaws? Admittedly, they had both passed 100 at the time and played their best innings for a long time, but still, let’s clutch at these negative straws at this time of unadulterated positivity.

3. Catching. England only took seven catches in the match. That might have been sufficient to win by a colossal margin in Durban, but the statistics show that most Tests are won by teams taking more than seven catches. Strauss should instruct his team not to appeal for lbws, and to avoid bowling batsmen out, in order to improve their catching stats, and thus, their chances of winning future matches.

4. England let South Africa off the hook. Steyn’s last-wicket stand with Makhaya Ntini in the first innings could have turned the game and series. It didn’t, because England responded superbly and destroyed their opponents comprehensively. But it could have done. So, although it transpired not to be a negative, it might have been one if the rest of the game had transpired completely differently.

5. JP Duminy outbowled Jimmy Anderson (3 for 89 versus 3 for 99 in the match). And Steyn scored more runs in the match that Jonathan Trott and Pietersen combined. If that keeps happening, England will lose more matches than they win.

6. Graeme Swann continues to perform alarmingly well. In little over a year, he has gone from being an unfulfilled talent to one of the world’s highest-value Test cricketers. He has become indispensable. If he were to pick up an injury, or accidentally sell his spinning finger on eBay, or be struck by a divine vision, retire from cricket and devote himself to the church, England’s plans would be in disarray.

So, in summary, it wasn’t all good. Nevertheless, Andy Flower and Andrew Strauss are proving to be a canny team. On the basis of their Ashes triumph at Lord’s, they had calculated, using mathematics and science, that England play their best only after narrowly avoiding defeat with a desperate last-wicket partnership. Therefore, in the final session in Centurion, England deliberately collapsed to the precipice of defeat, in order to be able to hang on for a draw, frustrate the South Africans, and march to Durban with momentum firmly stuffed into their cricket bags.

(Anyone allergic to spurious statistics please skip the following paragraphs.)

By my calculation, aided as ever by my loyal helper, confidant and soulmate, Statsguru, England have now successfully relied on their 10th-wicket pair to bat them to safety in a Test on six occasions. Their record in the subsequent matches is impressive – four thumping wins (Lord’s and Durban this year, plus an eight-wicket triumph against South Africa in 1998, and a 217-run win over West Indies after their famous Cowdrey’s-arm-in-plaster Lord’s escape in 1963), plus one draw (in Sri Lanka in 2003-04), and one defeat, which barely counts as it occurred in the first Ashes Test of 1968, months after England had clung on for a draw in the final Test of the 1967-68 series in the Caribbean.

You cannot argue with that form-line, and bearing in mind that England had just four last-wicket-saviours in their first 886 Tests, but have since had two in their last seven, I defy any statistician to claim that these narrow escapes were not entirely deliberate. Both, after all, were spectacularly manufactured on dead pitches which appeared to have made a draw inevitable.

I fully expect Graham Onions and James Anderson to bat England to another fingertip draw in Cape Town on Thursday, before Strauss and his men romp to victory in the final Test.

(Statisticophobes may now return to the blog.)

The decade also began well for Pakistan, and in particular for Mohammad Asif and Mohammad Sami, who for differing reasons and in different ways were among the biggest underachievers of the 2000s. Asif’s class has never been in doubt, but how can the Sami who reduced Australia to 10 for 3 with devastating pace and movement be the same Sami who has the second-highest Test bowling average out of the 401 men to have taken more than 40 Test wickets, superior only to renowned strike bowler Sachin Tendulkar (whose batting stats are somewhat superior to Sami’s by way of compensation)?

Australia’s season continues in its curious vein, with just one century in four-and-a-half Tests, and that scored despite Shane Watson’s heroic efforts in Melbourne to get out in the 90s and thus continue his team’s stupendous run of failing to score hundreds.

When most players would have selfishly smashed their way through the nineties towards personal glory, Watson thought only of his team, and prodded and poked for what seemed like days, before finally spooning a dolly to cover on 99, mindful that Australia had lost the Ashes despite scoring eight hundreds to England’s two. Sadly, he had not legislated for Abdur Rauf’s buttery fingers, the triumphant run of 20 unconverted half-centuries was tragically broken, and, inevitably, Australia collapsed in a heap next time they batted.

Next time: The latest and now slightly belated year-by-year highlights of the last decade. (I haven’t forgotten about them. I’m just trying to remember them.) And look out for the next podcast later in the week.

Andy Zaltzman is a stand-up comedian, a regular on the BBC Radio 4, and a writer

Hi Muhammad, Sorry we still have to do carry out our fraud/age checks etc so a valid aypment method is required, though you can opt to choose paypal as a aypment method if you don't want to add a card to the account.

fanedlive
on February 14, 2010, 9:36 GMT

Hi Andy, I love this column and greatly admire your style of writing. Brilliantly funny! I just wanted to point out that the Sami hyperlink seems to be broken. Thanks!

fanedlive
on January 7, 2010, 17:19 GMT

"I fully expect Graham Onions and James Anderson to bat England to another fingertip draw in Cape Town on Thursday, before Strauss and his men romp to victory in the final Test."

If you'd put money on that you wouldn't have one, but you would've been about as close as you could get!!!

So will Eng surely win the final test?! Here's wishing they do to prove you right.

(You did get the last pair wrong though, but again Onions is becoming a last over batting specialist, isn't he?!)

fanedlive
on January 7, 2010, 16:06 GMT

Good call Andy - except it was Onions and *Swann*, not Anderson. Still, we all make mistakes.

fanedlive
on January 7, 2010, 16:03 GMT

Wow - what prediction - england is about to pull it off

fanedlive
on January 5, 2010, 15:51 GMT

We'll certainly need your satire after today's debacle. And then down to the nets to practise for June 6th.

fanedlive
on January 5, 2010, 15:46 GMT

Does Cardiff 2009 count as an occasion when the last-wicket pair batted England to safety, given that England were ahead by the end of the game? I for one was willing Monty to smash his stumps over on the first ball of the last over, just to rub it in - there would have been no time for the Australian openers to come out and get the runs. So given that, once the last over had begun, it didn't matter that neither of them was out, does it really bear comparison with the situation in Durban?

fanedlive
on January 5, 2010, 12:01 GMT

Always excellent. Looking forward to next week's pod.

fanedlive
on March 2, 2012, 16:22 GMT

Hi Muhammad, Sorry we still have to do carry out our fraud/age checks etc so a valid aypment method is required, though you can opt to choose paypal as a aypment method if you don't want to add a card to the account.

fanedlive
on February 14, 2010, 9:36 GMT

Hi Andy, I love this column and greatly admire your style of writing. Brilliantly funny! I just wanted to point out that the Sami hyperlink seems to be broken. Thanks!

fanedlive
on January 7, 2010, 17:19 GMT

"I fully expect Graham Onions and James Anderson to bat England to another fingertip draw in Cape Town on Thursday, before Strauss and his men romp to victory in the final Test."

If you'd put money on that you wouldn't have one, but you would've been about as close as you could get!!!

So will Eng surely win the final test?! Here's wishing they do to prove you right.

(You did get the last pair wrong though, but again Onions is becoming a last over batting specialist, isn't he?!)

fanedlive
on January 7, 2010, 16:06 GMT

Good call Andy - except it was Onions and *Swann*, not Anderson. Still, we all make mistakes.

fanedlive
on January 7, 2010, 16:03 GMT

Wow - what prediction - england is about to pull it off

fanedlive
on January 5, 2010, 15:51 GMT

We'll certainly need your satire after today's debacle. And then down to the nets to practise for June 6th.

fanedlive
on January 5, 2010, 15:46 GMT

Does Cardiff 2009 count as an occasion when the last-wicket pair batted England to safety, given that England were ahead by the end of the game? I for one was willing Monty to smash his stumps over on the first ball of the last over, just to rub it in - there would have been no time for the Australian openers to come out and get the runs. So given that, once the last over had begun, it didn't matter that neither of them was out, does it really bear comparison with the situation in Durban?

fanedlive
on January 5, 2010, 12:01 GMT

Always excellent. Looking forward to next week's pod.

fanedlive
on January 5, 2010, 8:04 GMT

Lovely satire as usual ! Andy make 2010 a bright year too with your concoctions of humour.

fanedlive
on January 5, 2010, 6:53 GMT

the Vijay merchant stat was just classic! Just how in the name of all that smells pleasant did he do it! and more importantly, how did you find that out!
keep on going!

fanedlive
on January 5, 2010, 3:44 GMT

One of your all time best articles! Ridiculously funny!
Thanks a ton!
Keep going! We love this! And if you have any problems with your wife regarding your extended affair with statsguru, we'd be obliged to implore her to let you continue (as her husband of course, I don't think Cricinfo will even contemplate firing you).

fanedlive
on January 5, 2010, 3:16 GMT

Thansk again Andy. Howver, I have to tell you it is not a matter of 'proclivities'. As a fan of numbers (e.g. Statsguru you have to appreciate that calendars are fixed numbers, not adaptable to your needs0. I would love to make Bradman's average greater than 100 but I can't and neither can you make a deacde or a century finish a year early. We have certainly just finsished the 'noughties' if you wish but, other than that it was no more the end of a decade than any year is the end of 'a decade' rather than 'the decade' (which they all are of course). The first year was year 1, not year 0. If a batsman's first run was called zero then he would score 100 runs on reaching 99. If a batsman was run out on ashort single for 99 he is not awarded a century. the decade or centurty is complete at the end of the 10th or 100th year, not at the start of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century#Start_and_end_in_the_Gregorian_Calendar

fanedlive
on January 5, 2010, 3:08 GMT

OK, Andy, be honest with us now. Have you been reading Dave Barry? The sixth paragraph above looks a lot like him (his writing, more precisely, seeing as your sixth paragraph doesn't have a mullet haircut or an "I have bad gas and am about to pass it" expression on its face.)

fanedlive
on January 4, 2010, 16:49 GMT

Andy, I have become a fan of your "Confectionery Stall". If I can say it in your way.. I could not find any one sentence or paragraph or phrase better than the other one.. as all are equally good !! The analysis is thorough, deep, significant and of course humorous.. Looking forward to the next one..

fanedlive
on January 4, 2010, 13:36 GMT

"One of the unavoidable medical side effects of modern sport-watching is feeling a faint but perceptible sensation of nausea and futility when hearing losing teams, captains and coaches desperately extracting spurious "positives" after being utterly defeated. A team will be walloped like a Victorian schoolboy, then hack away in the mineshaft of humiliation with the pickaxe of desperation in search of some flimsy nuggets of optimism to pass off as the pure gold of progress."

Very well written. Enjoyed reading it.

No featured comments at the moment.

fanedlive
on January 4, 2010, 13:36 GMT

"One of the unavoidable medical side effects of modern sport-watching is feeling a faint but perceptible sensation of nausea and futility when hearing losing teams, captains and coaches desperately extracting spurious "positives" after being utterly defeated. A team will be walloped like a Victorian schoolboy, then hack away in the mineshaft of humiliation with the pickaxe of desperation in search of some flimsy nuggets of optimism to pass off as the pure gold of progress."

Very well written. Enjoyed reading it.

fanedlive
on January 4, 2010, 16:49 GMT

Andy, I have become a fan of your "Confectionery Stall". If I can say it in your way.. I could not find any one sentence or paragraph or phrase better than the other one.. as all are equally good !! The analysis is thorough, deep, significant and of course humorous.. Looking forward to the next one..

fanedlive
on January 5, 2010, 3:08 GMT

OK, Andy, be honest with us now. Have you been reading Dave Barry? The sixth paragraph above looks a lot like him (his writing, more precisely, seeing as your sixth paragraph doesn't have a mullet haircut or an "I have bad gas and am about to pass it" expression on its face.)

fanedlive
on January 5, 2010, 3:16 GMT

Thansk again Andy. Howver, I have to tell you it is not a matter of 'proclivities'. As a fan of numbers (e.g. Statsguru you have to appreciate that calendars are fixed numbers, not adaptable to your needs0. I would love to make Bradman's average greater than 100 but I can't and neither can you make a deacde or a century finish a year early. We have certainly just finsished the 'noughties' if you wish but, other than that it was no more the end of a decade than any year is the end of 'a decade' rather than 'the decade' (which they all are of course). The first year was year 1, not year 0. If a batsman's first run was called zero then he would score 100 runs on reaching 99. If a batsman was run out on ashort single for 99 he is not awarded a century. the decade or centurty is complete at the end of the 10th or 100th year, not at the start of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century#Start_and_end_in_the_Gregorian_Calendar

fanedlive
on January 5, 2010, 3:44 GMT

One of your all time best articles! Ridiculously funny!
Thanks a ton!
Keep going! We love this! And if you have any problems with your wife regarding your extended affair with statsguru, we'd be obliged to implore her to let you continue (as her husband of course, I don't think Cricinfo will even contemplate firing you).

fanedlive
on January 5, 2010, 6:53 GMT

the Vijay merchant stat was just classic! Just how in the name of all that smells pleasant did he do it! and more importantly, how did you find that out!
keep on going!

fanedlive
on January 5, 2010, 8:04 GMT

Lovely satire as usual ! Andy make 2010 a bright year too with your concoctions of humour.

fanedlive
on January 5, 2010, 12:01 GMT

Always excellent. Looking forward to next week's pod.

fanedlive
on January 5, 2010, 15:46 GMT

Does Cardiff 2009 count as an occasion when the last-wicket pair batted England to safety, given that England were ahead by the end of the game? I for one was willing Monty to smash his stumps over on the first ball of the last over, just to rub it in - there would have been no time for the Australian openers to come out and get the runs. So given that, once the last over had begun, it didn't matter that neither of them was out, does it really bear comparison with the situation in Durban?

fanedlive
on January 5, 2010, 15:51 GMT

We'll certainly need your satire after today's debacle. And then down to the nets to practise for June 6th.